Essential Value and the State of the World

In light of the recent G20 summit and the report today that particles may be affecting the brain it is interesting to revisit Sunita Narain’s foreword to the Worldwatch Institute publication  State of the World 2006

In 2016 she was named to Time Magazine‘s list of 100 Most Influential People

The foreword starts

Sunita Narain

The rest of the foreword identifies the issues confronting us today and the need for China and India to take a different development path to that taken by the West.

The foreword can be accessed here ww-forward-2006-sunita


Rethinking Democracy

I feel the diagram below represents a rethinking of the Democratic Process and flows sufficiently accurately to enable discussion in a forum setting. There is obviously devil in the detail. If anyone has seen a diagram they think better represents the situation in a simpler format please let me know.

I will attempt a written description below the diagram.


“In a world where the resources and waste sinks available to SystemUK are constrained, the UK must work to identify, maximise, defend, retain and fairly distribute, over time, the Essential Value needed for prosperity and growth.

It must do this at continually decreasing Resource Intensity, the resource use per person per unit of Essential Value created or retained, whilst continually decreasing Failure Demand creation, caused by not doing the right thing, not doing it right or not doing it right every time.

The Democratic Process is a Virtuous Circle for Essential Value Creation, retention and equitable distribution. It is an in-process controlled system that takes a synergy and the knowledge and skills of its stakeholders to enable process learning.

After sensing external factors it applies ingenuity and creativity within society to improve the process. In-process control is exercised by civil, regional and local services and democratic accountability is exercised by Parliament, regional and local government.

There is no direct connection between democratic accountability and in-process control. the connection is though a ‘moderator’ and political parties and their agents can only change control factors through an, independently moderated, Essential Value and Resource Intensity impact assessment.” 

SystemUK and the Ingenuity Gap


The Process improvement and control diagram above explicitly emphasises the importance of Ingenuity and Creativity in continuous learning for sustainable governance.

It is clear that in a resource constrained environment, where, as identified below, Ingenuity and Creativity are also constrained, all efforts to their creation and application must be to the sole aim of sustainable governance in a democracy. To

“identify, maximise and defend the Essential Value available to society created and retained over time and to distribute it equitably at continually reducing Resource Intensity and Failure demand”

It is the fact that in any organisation or society, Ingenuity and Creativity are limited. This was identified by Thomas Homer in his book ‘The Ingenuity Gap‘ and it was also identified as a problem in the UK in an Ofsted Report as a missing element in education.

Sugata Mitra’s  experiments in self-teaching detailed here in the TED Talk he gave in 2010, have virtually proved that learning is an emergent property when small groups of students have access to information they can share. He provides at the end of the Talk a definition.

“Education is a Self Organising System where Learning is an Emergent Phenomenon”  

We are failing our learners if we do not lever the potential of social media and the internet to liberate the creativity all children possess and largely lose as they grow up with the educational model we have used since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution  . Ken Robinson makes this point in probably one of the most watched TED Talks, Do Schools Kill Creativity.

The problem, of course, is not with the children, it is with Society, Teachers and Industry; simply because they were not exposed to this concept of ‘emergent learning’ and the unlimited expectations of their mentors as they grew up.

In reality out traditional educational model never served, but in this time of exponential change,where more children will be passing through education in the next fifty years than have ever done, we cannot create inspirational teachers fast enough to liberate the necessary creativity that will enable us to solve the problems presented in the One Planet World we now inhabit.

The other key issue of course is the necessity we have to reduce the resource and carbon intensity of SystemUK by considerable amounts.

We must liberate the creativity to do this by design, or resource availability, at a price we can afford to pay as a society, or the Earth will do it for us.

In all this a key point is being missed and this is the need to maintain and generate the ‘tacit’ skills our society requires.

Fixing a Broken Democracy with Quality Thinking

All around us we are bombarded with messages telling us that we need to change, that the Earth is warming, that oil is peaking or we are in an power crisis. The messages are insistent and shrill but diverse and incoherent and all about our symptoms rather than the addiction we suffer, the hugely ineffective use of the resources and sinks that our only planet, the Earth, provides for us. As a result we are either paralysed into inaction or taking action that is neither systemic nor joined-up, to use a much hackneyed political expression.

Clearly the Earth as a ‘system’ is dynamic and complex and any attempt to describe it quantitatively and accurately is unlikely to lead to any clearer picture of useful action. What we need is a ‘mind model’, something that is powerful and evocative enough to provoke the right questions of societies, communities and organisations.A Mind Model 

‘A conceptual model of understanding, that once created, gives us the power to extract more information from it, than went into creating it.’ Such a conceptual, or mind model is the One Planet Equation.

The One Planet Equation

 We often are told we are enjoying a three planet lifestyle and this tells us that what we are doing is clearly not a sustainable state of affairs, but it is not clear from this what we need to do. We have in fact only ‘One Planet’ so the left hand side of our equation in a ‘resource constrained’ environment is fixed at 1.

The right hand side is made up of the population, their consumption of goods and services, and a factor which balances the equation. P x C x RI

There are clearly many interactions taking place here and there are inequities in resource distribution among individuals and societies; also the starting point assumes the footprint is no larger than the planet, however, a simple analysis shows us exactly what we need to do and gives us a paradigm in which we can form the correct questions to ask of ourselves, our institutions and our organisations.

We also express the population, consumption and resource factor, or intensity, aggregated as 1 lot of population and Consumption with a Resource Intensity of 1.

So at our starting point we have 1 = P x C x RI or 1 = 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 and as we move forward from this point, the 1 planet remains the same so the right hand product always has to equal one. The only way this can happen in a resourced constrained environment is if the Resource Intensity, (RI) is never more than 1/PC.

Simple compound interest does the rest and we can quickly see that if population stays the same and consumption grows at 5% for 40 years 1/PC is approximately 1/7 and if population grows at the predicted rate and consumption grew at 10% then 1/PC would have to be no greater than 1/70.

In round terms we would need to reduce Resource Intensity by a factor of between 10 and 100 by 2050. We can call this process dematerialisation. This can also be expressed as the ‘first law of sustainability’ that in a resource constrained environment, goods and services can only grow at the rate at which they can be dematerialised

Resource Intensities

 Whilst the above analysis is explicit in what we need to achieve, it will be useful if we can apportion Resource Intensities, within societies, communities and organisations.

A useful division includes

  • The Built Environment
  • Governance
  • Security
  • Mobility
  • Fulfillment
  • Learning
  • Failure Demand

It is clear from this list that they all overlap, which highlights the need to take a systems based view.

Intensity and Value Added

In this analysis there are areas that are beyond its scope, as the process with the least Resource Intensity is the one that doesn’t exist, and only society, communities, organisations and individuals can decide which are ‘essential’ and add value and which should be eliminated. For example, if a society considers unlimited, discretionary air travel adds value, then businesses will provide it. Whether this is a viable business model in a resource constrained future is a separate issue.

Loss and Genichi Taguchi

Once we have decided whether a process is essential within the bounds of our notion of added value, we have to decide if it is the right process to achieve the desired end and that it is carried out, without loss, correctly every time. That is, we have to be effective, by doing the right thing, right and then efficient, by doing it right every time.

Genichi Taguchi inspirationally made the connection that processes without loss were of perfect ‘quality’ and conversely, that less than perfect quality created a ‘loss to society’. It is also important to note that on a resource constrained planet, environmental and social losses can be as much, and perhaps more important than conventional economic ones.

In terms of this article, that loss results in an increase in the process ‘resource intensity’.

Intensity of Failure Demand

“Failure Demand’ is caused by a failure to do something, or do something right for the customer and ‘Value Demand’ – is what the system exists to provide”, – John Seddon. It is evident that such failure demand within systems will increase their Resource Intensity.

In the list above ‘failure demand’ is shown separately for emphasis but is, in reality, incorporated in the Resource Intensity resulting from the creation, use and disposal of the other categories. The Resource Intensity of Learning (RIoL) for example.

Continual Improvement

We have in the past thought that we can treat losses in processes as separate and that quality was a function within an organisation, focused on the customer, rather than that which

“Maximises the Essential Value added to and retained by society resulting  from the creation, use and disposal of products and services”

This must necessarily involve all an organisation’s stakeholders. It should also be stated, relating back, that it is society that decides what ‘adds value’ within its existent paradigm.

Losses in processes and systems can be environmental, social and economic and are best minimised by seeing the goal of sustainability as a journey of integrated, continual, quality improvement.

Creativity and Ingenuity

Shewhart created his circle of improvement, Plan, Do, Check, Act and it has stood the test of time but it doesn’t explicitly show the need for the creativity and ingenuity required to drive, integrated continual improvement, towards system sustainability.

A Virtuous Circle that, using ‘in process control’ and a synergy of the entire organisation’s stakeholders and their combined knowledge and skills will enable process learning and after sensing and absorbing the external signals will liberate the creativity and  ingenuity within to drive the process design in the direction of sustainability. As the process becomes more sustainable the losses are by definition minimised, reducing the need for appraisal costs and eliminating the costs and risks of internal and most importantly, external failures. With minimised costs and no external failures the profitability, public perception and value added to society are maximised.


The Right Questions

We have reached a point in our evolution as societies where innovation will shortly transition from being driven by technology and will by driven by resource constraints. It important that as societies, communities and organisations we ask the right questions based on the tenets that

  • our future is resource constrained
  • humans are creative and enterprising

These two tenets will ensure that as we transition into our resource constrained future, some organisations will disappear and be replaced; others, with exceptional strategic leadership and management, might survive and grow.

The task is simple, if not easy to accomplish, and again can by reduced to two key questions

  • Is our business model relevant to such a future?
  • Does our leadership and management, enable the liberation of the creativity required to continually reduce the resource intensity of the goods and services we produce, consume and dispose of?

This will need the most massive effort of ‘quality improvement’ the world has yet seen.


The message is clear; we have to change, but how? Our symptoms are plain for all to see but our addiction, the vast and hugely ineffective deployment of resources to create, use and dispose of the products and services we consume, remains untreated. Calling this addiction, Affluenza may be a representation of the truth in the developed Western Economies but it does not make clear the path we must follow to effect a cure.

Simply exhorting people to consume less is ineffective as is calling certain Jobs, Products and services, Green. There are many ‘essential’ jobs, products and services that cannot be considered in this light, many in the public sector, but their resource intensity is crucial in any attempt to balance the One Planet Equation. In the context of this balancing we can say that

‘There are no such things as ‘Green’ jobs, products or services, only those that increase or reduce the ‘Resource Intensity of Society’

This also highlights the absurdity of the Reductionist Paradigm, where Vauxhall Motors, in an ISO14001 video trumpeted energy savings in the order of £1m with a payback of 10 months, when GM should have been asking

“How do we evolve our business model and strategy to continually reduce the ‘resource intensity of mobility?”

Finally, the One Planet Equation is immutable, it drives our futures whether we choose to ignore it or not, and we have no option but to enter the future, either by design or negligence. Better, as far as possible by design.

Essential Value and Educational Quality

In a previous post it was deduced that in a Society(system) encountering energy and resource constraints the sole aim of the organisation of governance is to

“identify, maximise and defend the Essential Value to Society created and retained over time and to distribute it equitably at continually reducing Resource Intensity and Failure demand”

The question then arises “what is the role that education can and indeed must play in enabling this; through its output in terms of human resources, creativity and ingenuity; and its consumption of resources in the process?”

Clearly there is a conflict here as traditionally an education has been seen, at least since the Enlightenment, as enabling the liberation of the human spirit and the individual, without thought of constraints. That the individual and the collective could all attain their needs and wants, without constraint or considering the needs of the system, with the ‘right education’

This is an ideal that cannot be fully met when constraints exist, but its essence must be retained if the individual is thrive and create Essential Value in their own life and at the same time contribute to the enlarging of the pool of Essential Value available to Society.

The crucial question here is “what is Essential Value?” This will depend on the perceived needs of a society, its culture and the resources available to it. In general Essential Value is as outlined in this post.

In the pursuit and creation of identified Essential Value three issues arise

  • Creativity and Ingenuity are limited in any society.
  • There can only be a probability that an action can create the desired Essential Value.
  • Unconnected activity or research might produce the knowledge to, or actually generate the required Essential Value.

The Governance Sustainability flow diagram below attempts to illustrate this by placing Education outside the improvement loop and feeding into it and from it.

In the light of what has been stated above can we now extract a definition ofEducational Quality, at system level, under resource constraints?

Well, from the statement of the aim of organisational governance and the definition of Quality at system level from this post – as that which “Maximises the Essential Value added to and retained by society resulting  from the creation, use and disposal of products and services” at reducing Resource Intensity.” it is possible to say that the best Quality of Life available to citizens is that produced by the “Maximisation of the Essential Value available to society (resulting  from the creation, use and disposal of products and services” at reducing Resource Intensity.)

As the Educational System must enable this it follows that we can define Educational Quality as that which –

“Enables the liberation of the fulfillment, creativity and ingenuity in individuals and the collective that will lead to the maximisation and equitable distribution of their Quality of Life”

Rotary – Leading in the One Planet World


We have reached an important date when we have consumed in just over 7 months what the Earth can only replenish in the full year. Where our Children are worse off than we were at their age. The time has come to think what Rotary must become to face and help deal with these realities. I wrote this in 2009.

Rotary in Transition

 As we enter the second decade of the third Millennium it is clear that Rotary International faces, like the rest of humanity a period of transition, of opportunities and threats.

A future that can be seen as a challenging adventure or an impossible challenge; the choice is ours.

This piece is adapted from a longer one on leadership that can be viewed and downloaded from the link at the end.

 The One Planet World

 It is clear that the pressure we are putting the Earth under is leading to resource shortages, both in absolute terms and relative distribution. For many of us, our experiment in living a multiple planet existence on the only planet we have is coming to a close.

This has far reaching consequences for how we will ‘manage for a One Planet World’ and the leadership skills Rotarians will need.

Quality of Life, the ‘BigQ’

At the centre of our adventurous challenge is a concept we have lost sight of, although it lies at the centre of the Rotary four way test

  • Is it the TRUTH?
  • Is it FAIR to all concerned?
  • Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

This is the Quality of our efforts and our relationships, the Quality of our lives.

In the One Planet World we can no longer accept, as Rotarians, the narrow view of Quality in our personal and professional lives and recognise that because a product or service satisfies, nay delights the customer, that it possesses ‘quality’ –  if it leads to a ‘loss to society’ through economic, social and environmental failures.

 A Mind Model

 There is a One Planet Equation Mind Model (OPE) 1 = P x C x RI, that inevitably draws us its consequence; the First Law of Sustainability

In a resource constrained environment, goods and services can only grow at the rate at which their resource intensity can be reduced beyond balancing the One Planet Equation’.

From this vantage point Rotarians can look dispassionately at the One Planet World and say what this means for us as suppliers and customers of its products and services.

Resource Intensity

 We have but One World and the only way we can balance the OPE in a resource constrained environment is if the

  • Resource Intensity, (RI) is never more than 1/PC.

This is the key to future strategic Rotary and personal leadership. We must

  • Seek to eliminate the cannots
  • Base our Rotary and business model on the musts.
  • Work to continually reduce the Resource Intensity of the products and services we create, use and dispose of. 

We can say that in the One Planet World

  • Energy, water and other resources will be constrained
  • Human resources will be plentiful

And from these come the ‘we cannots’

  • Create growth faster than we can reduce Resource Intensity (RI)
  • Waste or ineffectively invest resources
  • Freely transport resources or goods
  • Keep using our system of creation, use and then disposal to ‘the tip’
  • Keep creating products and services that feed ‘Affluenza’
  • Invest in inflexible technology, infrastructure and buildings
  • Design for obsolescence
  • Use Energy and water  ineffectively

And the ‘we musts’

  • Evolve our Democratic and Rotary processes to enable process learning and continual improvement
  • Leave behind the reductionist, compliance approach to organizational management
  • Think local
  • Educate for Resource Intensity minimization
  • Continually reduce the Resource Intensity of non-essential processes to zero (eliminate them)
  • Ethically and with consideration, replace energy with people (Ingenuity and creativity) in processes. These are your customers!
  • Replace products with services
  • Design for maintainability
  • Design for reliability
  • Work to continually reduce the losses in the essential processes remaining (improve quality).

Only in this way can we perceive how Rotary, and we as Rotarians are to lead in the One Planet World

 Rotary in the 3rd Millennium

 It is increasingly being recognised that we are coasting to the top of many resource curves, and are at or near the reality of the the Earth deciding our futures.

In leading for the future, Rotary International will have to cope with this reality.

Fortunately Rotarians are creative and enterprising and by looking at our future as the adventurous challenge it is, Rotary can be in the vanguard of creating the One Planet World.

Future Shock

We are suffering from what Alvin Toffler called ‘Future Shock’.

This being a state of confusion that arises when the past offers little guidance to dealing with the present and the future and we are in such a time, where the past offers few signposts – when increasing demand for goods and services meets declining resources to create them.

As was ever the case Rotary must be in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing, right.

Anticipating and influencing the needs and actions of society will make the difference between success and failure.

As the management Guru Peter Drucker said “what the customer sees, thinks, believes and wants at any time determines if value is being created”

Instantaneous Adaptability

Leadership in the One Planet World requires us to be almost instantaneously adaptable as a service organisation and as individuals, with the vision and skills to create the same adaptability within the organizations we serve.

The resources available to us will be reducing over time and we must marshal them to continually increase the supply of goods and services that meet the essential emotional and spiritual needs of our customers.

Tomorrow’s Rotarians must have the skills and ability to liberate the creativity and ingenuity in their people and other stakeholders that will enable and drive change.

Learning and Teaching

 In the One Planet World we must learn what our stakeholders are uniquely able to teach us if we are make maximum use of the resources available to us.

This learning must be instantaneously part of a ‘Virtuous Circle’ of improvement to ensure continual process learning and Resource Intensity reduction.

Rotarians in leading for ‘Future Advantage’ will

  • Remember Edward Deming’s adage that ‘Survival is not Compulsory’ for an Rotary Club, Rotary, or the human race.
  • Understand that time is not on our side.
  • See the future as a challenging adventure and not an impossible challenge.

Rotary – Future Advantage

 This article is predicated on four tenets

  • That we are addicted to the hugely ineffective use of energy and other resources
  • That most current discourse is centred on the ’symptoms’ our addiction causes – climate change, environmental, social and economic failures
  • That human beings are, and have been, creative, ingenious and enterprising since the dawn of our species.
  • That our’ future is ‘our’ problem – that the Earth will most probably manage very well without us.

The OPE makes clear the effect our addiction is having and makes explicit the action needed to create the One Planet World – to continually reduce the resource intensity of all the products and services we consume.

This is the real challenge we face if we are to create an economic future that is more equitable, whilst eliminating the risks of environmental and social failures in its creation.

Rotary International as an organization has always wanted and worked so that communities and societies can continually improve the ‘quality of their lives’, and this can only be achieved, logically, by continually improving the ‘quality’ of the products and services we create as Rotarians and consume over their life-cycle.

We must ‘Do the Right Thing’ – be effective in our use of resources and ‘Do it Right Every Time’ – be efficient in our use of those resources. This is a Journey, not a destination and has at its core the need for an effort of ‘quality improvement’ driven by human creativity that the world has not yet experienced.

We face many challenges to achieving this, not least, the economic, environmental and social failures we are now experiencing and the natural response to ‘fight the last war with obsolete weapon’s’; but we have no option but to enter the future and we must envision what the best possible future can be and then continue to work to enable it.

Derek Deighton


The Essential Value and Resource Intensity Impact Assessment – EVIA


It is clear that in an environment where resources are at a premium, or are absolutely constrained, creating other than Essential Value as perceived by a customer or society will lead to the demise of a business at the micro level or a society at the macro level. Recognising here that the availability of a local or global sink to dispose of the non-value byproducts of processes (Failure Demand) may also be constrained.

If resources are constrained, then the amount of Essential Value that can be created will depend on the amount of resources consumed in their creation. The Resource Intensity being the Resource use per unit of Essential Value created or retained.

Whilst this analysis is applicable to business and governance generally there are differences in emphasis and this post is concerned with the widely held view that the systems of governance globally are failing to grasp the situation facing mankind. The falling energy and resource intensity of societies. Coupled with the fact that the human intensity of societies is increasing globally, complicated by skewed age demographics.

Environmental Impact Assessment.

The Convention on Biological Diversity  gives the UNEP definition of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

“Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process of evaluating the likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or development, taking into account interrelated socioeconomic, cultural and human-health impacts, both beneficial and adverse.

UNEP defines Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a tool used to identify the environmental, social and economic impacts of a project prior to decision-making. It aims to predict environmental impacts at an early stage in project planning and design, find ways and means to reduce adverse impacts, shape projects to suit the local environment and present the predictions and options to decision-makers. By using EIA both environmental and economic benefits can be achieved, such as reduced cost and time of project implementation and design, avoided treatment/clean-up costs and impacts of laws and regulations.”

This is fine as it goes but it does not ask “if we have limited resources available, is the proposed project or development adding value to society that will help sustain or improve the Quality of Life of its citizens. Is the project or development adding Essential Value?

For example we can investigate the possible Environmental etc. impacts of a proposed Airport Development in the light of the above and design aircraft to be less carbon intense and generate less noise but it does not ask the question “is unlimited discretionary air travel desirable or even possible in a resource constrained future?

The Essential Value and Resource Intensity Impact Assessment.

It is proposed in other posts here that the the governance of a society should be an in-control improvement circle driven by the creativity and ingenuity liberated by all the stakeholders in society taking into account external environmental, social and economic factors. Political and other agents only have the ability to make process changes through a moderation process requiring the generation of an Essential Value and Resource Intensity Impact Assessment.

It is not suggested that this should be an extensive and complex document requiring the employment of professionals but something that can be deployed at all levels of governance from local to national. The object of the exercise is to make agents making proposals to change processes within governance think objectively about the probable  benefits and demands over time the change would make.

Full EIA’s would still be appropriate for some forms of project or development once that, on a balance of probabilities, it was decided through moderation that they would add Essential Value to society at a Resource Intensity that was sustainable, and preferably decreasing over time through process learning and improvement.

Elements of an EVIA

In a world where resources are unconstrained, businesses and societies can go about creating goods and services which may be effective and efficient or not, try this and that which might or might not satisfy the needs or wants of a tiny minority or everyone. The amount of resources used in so doing are immaterial and the waste generated inconsequential.

In a world where resources, or even one resource or sink is constrained, this not longer is viable. Society then has to identify what it considers the Essential Value needed to ensure a satisfactory Quality of Life for its citizens and how it can maximise the creation and retention of this with the resources available and affordable, creating as little loss in the process as possible.

It must do this knowing

  • Creativity and ingenuity are limited in society
  • Human capital is plentiful
  • People are resourceful, resilient and enterprising
  • The most important forms of self actualization need not be resource intensive.
  • Survival is not compulsory.

Here there is no intention of developing the concept of the EVIA in detail but only in general terms.

Essential Value

As stated above “Essential Value is that needed to ensure a satisfactory Quality of Life for all citizens and in a wider sense, the stakeholders of a society”. In light of this imperative it can be stated, government, its service provision and businesses must

  • Satisfy emotional and spiritual need rather than gratuitous wants
  • Satisfy essential needs in the lower orders of Maslow’s Pyramid
  • Employ people rather than energy
  • Create or use renewable energy and other resources
  • Minimise water use or create the technologies that do
  • Create and deploy climate stabilising and mitigation technologies
  • Be increasingly local
  • Provide a service rather than a product
  • Practice life-cycle stewardship of their resources
  • Manage value rather than cost
  • Be able to operate at continually reducing resource intensity

The EVIA therefore must identify the Essential Value it is seeking to create and/or retain based on the above. Noting and justifying any trade offs required.

As stated, the EVIA is meant to qualitative rather than quantitative but must contain expected outcomes that can later be expressed quantitatively and tracked.

All process outcomes implemented as a result of an EVIA must be so tracked as to allow process learning and improvement or removal.

Resource Intensities

Resource Intensity has to be recognised as the equal of Essential Value in an EVIA as

Any process, product or service created in a resource constrained environment, that is other than Essential Value is total waste, as are the resources consumed; e.g. no matter how efficiently one digs a hole in the wrong place it still doesn’t create any Essential Value.

The First Law of Sustainability states that ‘In a resource constrained environment we cannot create growth faster than we can reduce Resource Intensity (RI)’

These are the cannot’s the Resource Intensity section of an EVIA must consider. We cannot

  • Waste or ineffectively invest resources
  • Freely transport resources or goods
  • Use a linear system of creation, use and disposal
  • Keep creating products and services that allow unlimited forms of self-actualization
  • Invest in inflexible technology, infrastructure and buildings
  • Design for obsolescence
  • Use Energy, non-renewable resources and water  ineffectively

As with the Essential Value section of the EVIA quantifiable outcomes must be identified and tracked for process improvement or elimination.



The Town Paper defines a Charrette

“A charrette is an intensive planning session where citizens, designers and others collaborate on a vision for development. It provides a forum for ideas and offers the unique advantage of giving immediate feedback to the designers. More importantly, it allows everyone who participates to be a mutual author of the plan.

As stated at the beginning of this post the aim of the EVIA is not the creation of excessive bureaucracy, but the effective generation of one might benefit from the Charrette process. Locally this may be self-organised but at regional and national level some element of professional input may prove appropriate.